Allmendinger

Ross I'm not sure if you are implying that Bolt cheated?
I think sport at the elite level will occaionally turn up someone of 'freakish' ability as much as an accident of genetics. In this I think countries who have a larger population will have an advantage - but there is still a lot of luck involved in finding the talent.

No question? Armstrong was one of the mos tested riders in the sport. The French were desperate to catch him out and stop the wretched yanqui dominating their Tour. HE NEVER tested positive for anything - unlike Landis, Ulrich, Virenque, Millar, Rasmussen, Pantani, Contador and many, many more. How did he manage it?

The current campaign against him stinks of a kangaroo trial where they are intent on crucifying him on the anecdotal 'evidence' of other riders who totally failed to speak out about things at the time - perhaps because there was nothing to say.

He managed it by being a cheater. And you're wrong - he did test positive but magically came up with a doctor's note after getting caught, despite having just completed his UCI paperwork stating that he was not on anything of any kind for any reason.

Ross I'm not sure if you are implying that Bolt cheated?I think sport at the elite level will occaionally turn up someone of 'freakish' ability as much as an accident of genetics. In this I think countries who have a larger population will have an advantage - but there is still a lot of luck involved in finding the talent.

Agreed. I don't subscribe to "Wow he's freakishly good - he must be cheating"

It's not "he can't be that good" but that I wouldn't be surprised at all if he(and everyone else) was on something. I think cheating is the norm rather than that it's the exception and Bolt is the culprit.

Cycling got to the point where the default assumption was everyone was doped.

you know I'm curious why you would think this. If Bolt had suddenly improved out of nowhere...like the women's shot puter from belarus, I might concur.
The thing is that if we look back in time to pre steriods, even as far back as the 1920's there were people with prodigious talent and ability.

Performance isn't proof of cheating - it is possible that one's stellar performance is purely talent, training and staggeringly good luck. That said, check this chart of Men's 100M times. Now - that's one hell of a lucky day right there. 830 performances from 250 different athletes from 1964 to 2012. But it's not doping...nope.

suddenly improved out of nowhere...like the women's shot puter from belarus

Trivia - her gold medal performance was good enough for 54th of all time in her sport. 54th. The top 50 all came during the late 70s through the 80s, before the advent of off-season drug testing, but that's likely just coincidence.

Performance isn't proof of cheating - it is possible that one's stellar performance is purely talent, training and staggeringly good luck. That said, check this chart of Men's 100M times. Now - that's one hell of a lucky day right there. 830 performances from 250 different athletes from 1964 to 2012. But it's not doping...nope.

Unfortunately for your argument, the 9.58 is not really that far out of the ordinary for Bolt. For example the 9.69 at the Beijing Olympics - coasting the last 10 metres (something Bolt does all too often). Of course there is also the 9.63 he just ran in London but not shown on your chart.

100m runners are dominated by big black men as they tend to be stronger. And really they have only been accepted mainstream for about 20-25 years. Before that it was just puny white men!!
And the traing that all of these athnletes go through these days makes them stronger, the science involved, the diet they eat. Puny white men are way faster now and struggle to make a final!
Bike racing is a cheaters sport, lots of endurance required, 100 yards sprints is pure strength. And Bolt wont run any more than 200 metres!
I dont think he is a cheat,, though wouldnt be totally surprised if he was either. Says a lot about athletic sports.
Though if it was a true amatuer sport where they had to earn a living they all would be a good bit slower over a few years,

You can look at that collection of data from the world's best athletes - some of whom have been caught doping and say that huge outlier (and the almost-as-huge 2012) is the result of a guy so unbelievably gifted, he crushed the world's best doped runners too? That's a tremendous amount of faith. As I said - it's not proof of anything, but you can't look at that without raising an eyebrow.

The technology no doubt plays a role - the track at this year's Olympics was dubbed the "magic carpet - comes with a new Personal Record with every run".

100m runners are dominated by big black men as they tend to be stronger. And really they have only been accepted mainstream for about 20-25 years. Before that it was just puny white men!!And the traing that all of these athnletes go through these days makes them stronger, the science involved, the diet they eat. Puny white men are way faster now and struggle to make a final!Bike racing is a cheaters sport, lots of endurance required, 100 yards sprints is pure strength. And Bolt wont run any more than 200 metres!I dont think he is a cheat,, though wouldnt be totally surprised if he was either. Says a lot about athletic sports.Though if it was a true amatuer sport where they had to earn a living they all would be a good bit slower over a few years,

In terms of sprinters doping, Lee, you really just don't know what you're talking about. Don't take that personal or anything, but you're just flat wrong. I have no idea if Bolt is doping. I do know that his height makes him quite a bit different than most of the other sprinters, which could play a part in his performance (although, that height is generally accepted as a negative).

Bike racing is a 'cheaters sport'. Let's accept that premise. So is every other athletic contest. It doesn't matter if you're riding a bike up a mountain, swinging a bat or kicking a ball. Remember, most the drugs are not such a big deal during the actual event. What they have a huge effect on is the training load that you can sustain in the years and months prior to the event. You have to be a complete idiot to take the drugs during the event (because you _will_ be caught).

I'm not exactly sure where you were going with the rest of your post, but Jimmy the Greek called and he's interested.

He managed it by being a cheater. And you're wrong - he did test positive but magically came up with a doctor's note after getting caught, despite having just completed his UCI paperwork stating that he was not on anything of any kind for any reason.

What he tested positive for was hydrocortisone, which comes from any drug store and you put it on saddle sores. Saddle sores are a _big deal_ in cycling, but it wasn't anything crazy. I think the people that are LA 'haters' pull this card a little too much, honestly. It really was nothing. Did they 'manufacture' the prescription, ya, sure, but it was seriously no big deal.

As far as him passing the tests, etc. He's smart. He was working with a team that was the cycling equivalent of McLaren or Red Bull. They did everything they could get away with, but they didn't try to do stupid stuff that was risky. Like I've said before, the guy really was an animal. He was riding against the best in the world and they were doped (they were all exposed at one time or the other), but in addition to the doping he was a hell of an athlete.

Floyd Landis, one of LA's main accuser, said this in one interview I read, "What's unfortunate about all this (the scandal) is that people might not understand that Lance Armstrong is one bad-assed bike racer."

What he tested positive for was hydrocortisone, which comes from any drug store and you put it on saddle sores. Saddle sores are a _big deal_ in cycling, but it wasn't anything crazy. I think the people that are LA 'haters' pull this card a little too much, honestly. It really was nothing. Did they 'manufacture' the prescription, ya, sure, but it was seriously no big deal.

As far as him passing the tests, etc. He's smart. He was working with a team that was the cycling equivalent of McLaren or Red Bull. They did everything they could get away with, but they didn't try to do stupid stuff that was risky. Like I've said before, the guy really was an animal. He was riding against the best in the world and they were doped (they were all exposed at one time or the other), but in addition to the doping he was a hell of an athlete.

Floyd Landis, one of LA's main accuser, said this in one interview I read, "What's unfortunate about all this (the scandal) is that people might not understand that Lance Armstrong is one bad-assed bike racer."

A fun exercise is going on Wikipedia and hypothetically removing Lance's wins and then going down the list until you find a rider who didn't also dope. Correcting the results is crazy.

Cycling as a sport (which I love BTW) has a cultural problem with doping, but I suspect other sports are just as bad, they just don't occur on public roads where the Police have jurisdiction and can easily search people and vehicles.

Cycling doesn't help itself by pretending that dopers are isolated individuals and not the symptom of a corrupt culture. You basically have young guys who are asked to give up their life's ambition or dope. The UCI spent years doing little to fix it and then just hangs individuals out to dry. Reading Rough Ride by Kimmage, David Miller and Bjarn Riis' books are quite important in understanding things.

Floyd Landis, one of LA's main accuser, said this in one interview I read, "What's unfortunate about all this (the scandal) is that people might not understand that Lance Armstrong is one bad-assed bike racer."

It's easier with a more blatant example; the East German women were so badass they literally became blokes, now that is badass. But as Landis says, it's unfortunate people don't see the amazing javelin throwers behind manliness and stuff..

He won every single race for more than 9 years, the 400 meter hurdles are arguably one of the hardest of the track and field events, as it is a sprint with hurdling thrown in and the runners win by 'dying the least' at the last 100 meters, if any track and field event is build for doping that would be a prime candidate. Moses were The dominant runner at a time when the east block countries had Steroid factories pumping athletes out, he were instrumental in getting MORE doping testing in place, and have spoken out against doping all his career.

Moses were possibly (arguably??) a renaissance throwback, but was also the Usian Bolt of his time, I refuse to believe he ever doped, he was just that freakishly good proving that you can be on top of the world without having to resort to doping.

Unfortunately for your argument, the 9.58 is not really that far out of the ordinary for Bolt. For example the 9.69 at the Beijing Olympics - coasting the last 10 metres (something Bolt does all too often). Of course there is also the 9.63 he just ran in London but not shown on your chart.

You're right - I'm not sure how I lost the 9.63 data point. I'm not at my machine I'm afraid, but using the data from IAAF.org again, I re-created the chart and then a handful of sub-charts. Here's all of the data supplied on Bolt:A 9.58 is not normal - in fact it's well out of the ordinary. So is his 9.63, 9.68 and arguably his 9.72. In fact, there's only 6 runs sub-9.70 out of 833, 2 of which are wind-assisted. The 3rd belongs to Tyson Gay and the remaining 3 are Bolt's. There's little question that he's elite and I suspect that, like Lance, on any level playing field, he'd still be a champion. Genetic freak? Doping? Angelic intervention? Beats me.

I would agree that LA's hydro test is over-blown - he still lied, and it's still on the UCI's list of substances. I think we're on the same page about his performance though - the man was a champion rider but his actions (and those of the rest of them) contributed to the very thing they claimed to be fighting against. We all have choices to make.

100m runners are dominated by big black men as they tend to be stronger. And really they have only been accepted mainstream for about 20-25 years. Before that it was just puny white men!!And the traing that all of these athnletes go through these days makes them stronger, the science involved, the diet they eat. Puny white men are way faster now and struggle to make a final!

Perhaps we need to understand that at this level genetics plays a huge part, but to get there requires huge levels of determination and training. Yet let us not forget the past - Abrahams ran on grass with no starting blocks as did cuthbert for most of her career. This was at a time when the net to catch talent was not spread wide...now it is spread very wide indeed in nearly all countries...so you will find the few gems out there.

A 9.58 is not normal - in fact it's well out of the ordinary. So is his 9.63, 9.68 and arguably his 9.72. In fact, there's only 6 runs sub-9.70 out of 833, 2 of which are wind-assisted. The 3rd belongs to Tyson Gay and the remaining 3 are Bolt's. There's little question that he's elite and I suspect that, like Lance, on any level playing field, he'd still be a champion. Genetic freak? Doping? Angelic intervention? Beats me.

You only needed to watch all his London runs to understand the huge spread in times. As with all the top athletes, he only runs the qualifying races fast enought to win/qualify. Come the final when he gives it everything (with some exceptions) differences in times will be due to other variables - track, wind, temperature, reaction time, execution and physical or mental condition "on the day".

A notoriously poor starter, Bolt has a significantly higher top speed than any runner in history. His body has somehow adapted the means to overcome the disadvantages posed by his height, allowing the one advantage (stride length) to give him an edge. It could be dope, but in the absence of evidence in that direction, I prefer to look for another explanation.

You only needed to watch all his London runs to understand the huge spread in times. As with all the top athletes, he only runs the qualifying races fast enought to win/qualify. Come the final when he gives it everything (with some exceptions) differences in times will be due to other variables - track, wind, temperature, reaction time, execution and physical or mental condition "on the day".

A notoriously poor starter, Bolt has a significantly higher top speed than any runner in history. His body has somehow adapted the means to overcome the disadvantages posed by his height, allowing the one advantage (stride length) to give him an edge. It could be dope, but in the absence of evidence in that direction, I prefer to look for another explanation.

The point people are trying to make is that they are ALL doping at a fairly high level of sophistication so that washes out. Then it goes back to natural ability and determination. That's why LA won. Not because he was doping.

The point people are trying to make is that they are ALL doping at a fairly high level of sophistication so that washes out.

The point I am trying to make is - there is no evidence to supprt your statement and the athlete should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I am not seeing any objections to a claim earlier in this thread that Edwin Moses never used PEDs despite being considered the greatest hurdler of all time.

just to add to the mix -fromhttp://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence".......Modern practices aimed at curing social ills may run against presumption of innocence. Some civil rights activists feel that pre-employment drug testing, while legal, violates this principle, as potential employees are presumed to be users of illegal drugs, and must prove themselves innocent through the test."

just to add to the mix fromhttp://en.wikipedia....on_of_innocence".......Modern practices aimed at curing social ills may run against presumption of innocence. Some civil rights activists feel that pre-employment drug testing, while legal, violates this principle, as potential employees are presumed to be users of illegal drugs, and must prove themselves innocent through the test."

Makes no sense to me. What is a courtroom trial? It is a TEST to either confirm or deny the presumed innocence. Metal detectors at airports? Random drug testing? Drug testing an entire workplace? In all these examples it is still valid (and usual) to presume the subjects innocent until the test results prove otherwise.

I am Dr. Bakare Tunde, the cousin of Nigerian Astronaut, Air Force Major Abacha Tunde. He was the first African in space when he made a secret flight to the Salyut 6 space station in 1979. He was on a later Soviet spaceflight, Soyuz T-16Z to the secret Soviet military space station Salyut 8T in 1989. He was stranded there in 1990 when the Soviet Union was dissolved. His other Soviet crew members returned to earth on the Soyuz T-16Z, but his place was taken up by return cargo. There have been occasional Progrez supply flights to keep him going since that time. He is in good humor, but wants to come home.

In the 14-years since he has been on the station, he has accumulated flight pay and interest amounting to almost $ 15,000,000 American Dollars. This is held in a trust at the Lagos National Savings and Trust Association. If we can obtain access to this money, we can place a down payment with the Russian Space Authorities for a Soyuz return flight to bring him back to Earth. I am told this will cost $ 3,000,000 American Dollars. In order to access the his trust fund we need your assistance.

Consequently, my colleagues and I are willing to transfer the total amount to your account or subsequent disbursement, since we as civil servants are prohibited by the Code of Conduct Bureau (Civil Service Laws) from opening and/ or operating foreign accounts in our names.

Needless to say, the trust reposed on you at this juncture is enormous. In return, we have agreed to offer you 20 percent of the transferred sum, while 10 percent shall be set aside for incidental expenses (internal and external) between the parties in the course of the transaction. You will be mandated to remit the balance 70 percent to other accounts in due course.

Kindly expedite action as we are behind schedule to enable us include downpayment in this financial quarter.

I am very sorry for distracting your attention,Indeed i am Barrister Paul Agucha,personal attorney to Late Mr J.C.Matthews,a national of your country, Who died and left some huge amount of money here with a bank, valued at US$25.5 million dollars. I have contacted you to assist me get this money transferred into your bank account.
TAKE NOTE FOR MORE INFORMATION KINDLY CONTACT ME THROUGH MY PRIVATE EMAIL NOT FACEBOOK OK

You could try my barrister, he seems genuine and honest. He's obviously very pleased to help any humanitarian cause.

You would be surprised how many apparently well-educated people fall for these "Nigerian" schemes of various types - even one degree-level automotive engineer I know. The Nigerians (and others) only persist with these schemes because they do get a steady flow of "bites".

You're right - I'm not sure how I lost the 9.63 data point. I'm not at my machine I'm afraid, but using the data from IAAF.org again, I re-created the chart and then a handful of sub-charts. Here's all of the data supplied on Bolt:A 9.58 is not normal - in fact it's well out of the ordinary. So is his 9.63, 9.68 and arguably his 9.72. In fact, there's only 6 runs sub-9.70 out of 833, 2 of which are wind-assisted. The 3rd belongs to Tyson Gay and the remaining 3 are Bolt's. There's little question that he's elite and I suspect that, like Lance, on any level playing field, he'd still be a champion. Genetic freak? Doping? Angelic intervention? Beats me.

I would agree that LA's hydro test is over-blown - he still lied, and it's still on the UCI's list of substances. I think we're on the same page about his performance though - the man was a champion rider but his actions (and those of the rest of them) contributed to the very thing they claimed to be fighting against. We all have choices to make.

Thefastest can never be normal

Statistically, seeing as thats the game we have here, only one person pn earth, on one day can have the fastest time.... If not Bolt, someone else. 8 times nder 9.95 in 08, he has form. Anyhow, he does not go flat out, as is bloody obvious from the sidelines, all the time, as the money is made in certain events... More to come i think

There is a very nteresting docu out there about the 88 mens olympic 100m race, yes ben johnston was doped, yes he denied it and admitted it in later life, but, of the 8 that took their marks, 6 were subsequently banned at some stage. Their hypocritical, galling, bile can be viewed with utter contempt now.

I put in 50 hard km (yes i ama hero) on my bike yesterday (mid thirties crisis) no way could i train again today, and thats what doping does, whether its epo, blood, testosterone, growth hormone, caffein, amphetamines all of which have played a part in cycle racing, its the recovery and go again that amkes the huge impacts.

As for LA, honestly are there people still thinking his wins were relevant... The bad guys are not LA or his lackies, its the UCI. Root out paul Kimmage, i hope he gets his pound of uci flesh now.

From what I have read 9 0f the last 12 TDF winners have been bent. And maybe they have not caught the other 3!
A bicycle junky aquaintance of mine met Armstrong when he was here and reckons he was bent then, proven right in hinsight but reputedly Armstrong has pocketed a million bucks a race to make up the numbers in our race for 2 or 3 years!! taxpayers funds at work!!
Makes a stockcar driver look angelic!

I suspect the entire sordid ordeal would make fascinating reading if it all came out: UCI's quiet complicity as they bask in the new-found wealth of American hero-worship on a scale they've not experienced before, inside information fed to various parties as advance warnings, lost b-samples and so on. I read somewhere over the weekend that 86% of TdF winners since 1968 have been directly caught or heavily implicated in doping scandals.

His announcement was a smart tactical move to delay things but more evidence is likely to come out during the remaining arbitration hearings. The pros certainly aren't in a big hurry to say anything about it but perhaps it's a case of people in glass houses. Who knows.

While I think he's guilty as sin, what I was concerned about was what appeared to be a different standard for him (loss of titles, permanent-ban) vs. some others who are still active. Hell, Riis sits on the UCI board now... However, it came out that he was offered the same deal as those who've agreed to testify against him erasing only 2 years, if he was willing to testify on the Conspiracy charges. His refusal led to his inclusion, which the others have never faced, in the whole Conspiracy charge, which is also how they levered back their own 8-year limit to go back to 1999.

His announcement was a smart tactical move to delay things but more evidence is likely to come out during the remaining arbitration hearings.

The arbitration hearings won't happen. Armstrong announced he is not exercising the option of requesting an arbitration hearing. His failure to exercise the option is taken as an admission of guilt by USADA and they have officially stripped him of his accomplishments.